powerrangersfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Admin Noticeboard
Feel free to ask the admins questions, propose ideas, report problems, etc. DcHallofJustice, admin, The Morphin Grid 13:22, January 4, 2012 (UTC) For an archive of old topics, click here. "No image" placeholder Could someone please replace File:NoRanger.png (above) - it needs to be in English. :On it. :: Here's one I turned up. :::Nice one guys. Christophe, that looks great. There's a legibility issue with the thunderbolt one I'm afraid (grey on grey). New Wikia Forums community:User_blog:BertH/New_Forums_now_available_in_Labs - I'd like to hear opinions about Wikia's new forum feature. It replaces an older one that we've never used. The new one would be good (wouldn't even have to worry about people not signing posts, as it does that for you just like on blog comments) except for one thing. A discussions section that appears on the bottom of articles, the disabling of which is a TOU violation. So, yes or no? And if yes, what sections would we have? Would it be wiki specific, or would general discussions be allowed (would put a stop to talk page spamming, I would hope)? Would this Admin Noticeboard page be archived and restarted as a forum? :I'll have to have a look at it later, but just from what you've said I am already against it. I don't like the notion of a discussion section at the bottom of articles. ::Same here. The discussion section sounds like a dealbreaker. :::Digifiend, you might want to bring up the issue you have. All talk pages are archived with the Message Wall featureGaeaman788 (talk) 17:17, December 12, 2012 (UTC) ::::This isn't the Message Wall. We'd still have talk pages. However, with two no votes for the same reason I was concerned about it, it looks to be a no-go, unless Wikia removes that discussions footer. :::::I'd like to try it out for a bit, though considering dealing with the crazy PR fanbase, it might be a problem. The noticeboard is getting HUGE and it would be better if this was converted into a forumGaeaman788 (talk) 21:20, December 12, 2012 (UTC) ::::::I haven't really seen a lot of this new forum feature, but I feel that the noticeboard is getting a bit too big and the forum has been neglected. --MrThermomanPreacher (talk) 22:27, December 12, 2012 (UTC) :::::::To see it in action, go to tardis:. :::::::Al previous history should be archived if we use the new forum, though I feel the noticeboard is getting too big, and I'm in faor of converting the notieboard into a forum so there's better organization of topics and we don't have to scroll past 100 other old topics. Gaeaman788 (talk) 00:29, December 13, 2012 (UTC) After looking at the tardis, my vote is changing to a definite NO. That discussion feature is ugly, duplicative, and unnecessary. Thing is, its at the bottom of the page, and its like they just made the Talk page more direct. Though what would the harm in it be for this wiki?Gaeaman788 (talk) 00:49, December 13, 2012 (UTC) :There are talk pages for a reason. Not to mention we don't want to clutter the wiki with useless chatter on article pages. ::I solved the Admin Noticeboard problem by archiving old topics here. Page is read-only to anyone not an administrator. I made a link at the top that points to it. :::One of Tardis's admins, CzechOut, is petitioning for the ability to remove that pesky discussions footer. Despite implementing the new forums, it certainly seems like they agree with us about THAT. Not surprising, as like us, they never adopted the Message Wall and still have Talk pages instead of Comments. Good idea archiving the Noticeboard talk - but as it's in the talk namespace, it created a redlink, which I fixed with a redirect. ::::Feel free to re-style the top link to the archive if you feel need be. Another wiki I use archives talk pages when they get long and I figure thats our best solution. It's all still there, just only us admins can comment on archived topics. That in turn makes this page easier to navigate until once again it fills up - at which point we can make another archive. After looking at the new forum feature on both the Tardis and Merlin Wikis, I don't know whether to go with the old or the new, I suppose the new one is easier and quicker but aside from that I don't really see any pros or cons. But I do still think we should use the forum whichever version we choose, as well as on the Kamen Rider and Metal Heroes Wiki. --MrThermomanPreacher (talk) 09:32, December 18, 2012 (UTC) :The old style forum actually exists at Forum:Index, which has the default settings and no posts. I removed the link from the navigation bar some time ago. I could just link to that and make some changes to the forum setup? What subforums should we use? The defaults are Watercooler (community discussion) and Help Desk (editors helping each other out). The new forum style still has that mandatory discussions footer on article pages, for which the above conversation yielded a consensus of "do not want". The old style forum doesn't have that annoyance. So, does anyone agree with MrThermomanPreacher? ::Honestly I rather not have a forum and rather just keep this about the knoweldge of PR and SS. I've seen the talk pages and the mess that occurs on pages like the Adventure Time one and it annoys me to know end considering it's just a bunch of really stupid, random chatter when it really should just be focused on the topic at hand. Most of the time it just ends up clogging out any significant work on th Activity page just to see people go back and forth over terrible fan fiction! -StrangerAtaru (talk) 16:05, December 18, 2012 (UTC) :::A valid point, and the reason why we got rid of the blogs. I certainly don't plan on turning this wiki into a Rangercrew or Rangerboard competititor. Any non-wiki discussions would have to be deleted on sight. :::Why not test run it on either KR and MH wiki?Gaeaman788 (talk) 19:11, December 18, 2012 (UTC) ::::I'm still against it altogether - there are already plenty of forums out there, let's just stick to what we do best. :::::When I was talking about the forum, I didn't mean a new Rangerboard or Rangercrew-type. I meant like a forum used to discuss the operation of this wiki, going beyond discussion on a talk page for just one article, and improving the wiki. Like what the other wikis do, including the Star Wars, Doctor Who, and Star Trek Wikis. --MrThermomanPreacher (talk) 23:32, December 19, 2012 (UTC) ::::::Yeah, I understood that just fine, like I said, all discussions on a forum should be about improving this wiki (another reason why we don't want that discussions footer the new forum forces on us, it encourages the discussing the subject of the article instead of the article itself). Anyone who starts a random discussion would be told to go to RC or RB and have the thread deleted as spam. We'd be sure to make this clear on the forum index page. My hope was that it would end the random comments on talk pages, which are meant to be for discussing changes to the article they're linked to, but more often than not, aren't. I certainly agree that this isn't the place to be discussing, say, possible alumni appearances in Super Megaforce. We only deal in sourced information here, not rumours and hearsay. Mickey Mouse Robo So what should we do about the Mickey Mouse Sentai Robo made by Toei? (http://www.jefusion.com/2012/12/king-robo-mickey-friends-combines-in-promo-video.html). My suggestion would be to either give it it's own page, or put it under the refrence page. Dont Be a Sad Panda (talk) 02:55, December 14, 2012 (UTC) :I'm not sure we should do anything about it, really. It's a combining robot, but there's hardly any other connection to Sentai. ::It's a homage, so I think we should put it in the references page. --MrThermomanPreacher (talk) 17:04, December 14, 2012 (UTC) :::It's an homage, yes. But not to Super Sentai, but combiner robots in general. It's called "Chou Gattai King Robo - Mickey and Friends". ::::While I stand by what I just said that it's not an homage to Super Sentai but Super Robos etc in general. There IS an image of the "team" in "uniform". image If you guys think it should go on there, go ahead. "Shiba Morpher" name source Do we have an official source for the name "Shiba Morpher"? Otherwise it's a Samuraizer, according to the deluxe toy photo as released in international territories. I've tried searching for a reference but come up empty (though various sites refer to it as such). Rovang's wiki, which uses almost only in-show references also registers it as unnamed. :Source seems to be Samurai Cast. So I've sent Fury Diamond a message on Rangercrew, asked him if it's fan conjecture or an official name. ::Went ahead and changed it. It's really just not named in the show any time it appears and we have the toy as reference. Ergo, that. :) :::Got a reply. Fury Diamond coined the term, it's not official. The message: "No source name. That is the name that I coined it because Lauren mentions that it was her father's and the only one that can summon the Sealing Symbol. The morpher has been passed down the Shiba family hence why I coined it. Shiba Morpher is not the official name. It's not a Samuraizer and technically it's not Lauren's Morpher. Shiba Morpher fits. One thing that you should know is that not every single item was named in the show. This was one of them." - Fury Diamond ::::We'll go with the toy name then. Appearances I think one of the latest users may be on to something. Perhaps adding on appearances by characters, zords and weapons is a good idea. It serves to document the use (or non-use) of a major plot device. I propose we go with it. If you guys are worried it'll clutter a page, then we can find someway to use a collapsible tab for it. :I don't know, some of the Zords/Weapons in question in almost every episode of the season since their introduction. ::We could make a "reverse" list in those cases, stating that they appear in all episodes, and if there are exceptions, list those.